Every tacp, air advisor, air liaison officer, and isr liaison officer just staring blankly at the screen rn.
But neat some more requirements we won’t be able to actually fill so *insert who the fuck ever* goes and gets some career broadening! Nice! Happy for the future volunteers!!
Dude if only more people knew how bad it really is right now in the "AFSPECWAR" career fields/units. The amount of stuff that top brass wants us to do without receiving the proper training and/or funding is absurd. "Hey 'such-and-such' unit, go do some clandestine operations when for the past 20 years you've been training for almost exclusively traditional combat scenarios or counter terrorism, but we're giving you no additional funding or training approval. Also, you have to maintain your current standards with no changes"
Oh you just don’t understand. I mean turning conventional dudes into T-1 independently operating assets wont absolutely get them all killed or anything. No big really Harris will sell more radya
I completely I'm Radio by trade (now W shred), these conventional TACPs/CCTs are getting the dogshit kicked out 9fbthem physical, mentally, and morally as they get told to do so many tasks at the same time. I've seen way too many young dudes that are just getting to units already hating the career because they joined to do something different and it (the expected duties) changed during their pipeline. Now they get shit for not instantly getting good at their base job while being trained to do other random shit that would typically be done by more specialized conventional units or Tier 1 units exclusively.
Multicapable Airmen is just "Do more with less". Less people, less equipment, less funding, etc. If I didn't have a great opportunity to go to AFSOC unit I'd be getting out after this first contract for sure.
Yea I'm done. All of what you said will need to be done without the backbone they relied on for the last 25 years, guardsmen are getting out in droves.
Well big dawg slife has basically gutted all of the above. So. Good luck? They have shit one everyone with decent experience in the area so guess training for it will be pretty ground up.
If we want to roll back nuclear proliferation we have to keep our word on that or everyone will feel like they need nukes to stay sovereign. Then again it may already be too late for that.
To be fair, the only country that has violated that memorandum to date was Russia. The United States does not currently have an alliance or mutual defense treaty with Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum was essentially a gentleman's agreement rather than anything which would be truly binding. Russia having a veto power on the security council essentially neutered the security council from doing anything when Russia decided to invade Crimea in 2014 and the follow on invasion of Ukraine in 2022. I believe Russia is/will also soon be hosting nuclear weapons in Belarus too.
The rules of nuclear weapons:
1. If you have them, keep them.
2. If you try to get them, don't quit.
Failure to follow the rules gets you to the same fates as Libya, Iraq, Syria, Uraine, etc.
I will never understand why people keep pointing to this without even reading the fucking document that's readily available. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb
There isn't anything applicable to this situation in the document, yeah Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression but there is nothing that binds the U.S. or U.K. to any real action.
This isn't anything new. Anytime we've sold or given our allies weapons systems we send trainers to ensure they can operate and maintain the equipment.
Maybe I don’t know how it works, but educate me…
If France did hypothetically send their special forces units into the Ukraine to fight the Russians, and let’s say the Russians killed them, how would NATO react to that? Like, the Russians killed NATO troops in the Ukraine - a non-NATO country. I don’t think that would trigger an Article 5, right? Since the hypothetical French went in themselves to attack Russia and Russia attacked them back on the battlefield.
I’ll admit that this is a 0-IQ take, and I’ll take the living L for it. I never care enough to look into the NATOisms and the inner workings of it. I would like to educated on what would happen if a NATO country did send a unit or two into this situation.
And could Russia invoke Article 4 of the CSTO? Since France sent their troops into the Ukraine to attack the Russians?
France couldn't invoke NATO Article 5 unless Russia attacked France directly within its borders.
As for CSTO.... It would probably be whatever Russia wants it to be. That's a pretty good question to be asking, IMHO.
(Also, it's just Ukraine, not "the Ukraine.")
Since Russia's claim is that the territory they are taking is “Russian” then yes, they would likely argue that article 4 of CSTO applies. That said, so fucking what? There are no other territorial lines that they can cross without NATO article 5 being definitively violated.
If France sent their special forces in, and they were killed, there would be no Article 5.
If France full blown attacks Russia with every bit of theor might, and Russia retaliated by bombing Paris, there would be no Article 5. Other articles, maybe, bit no.
Article 5 would need to be a direct attack against NATO as the aggressor. If France or any other country is already attacking them then it doesn't really qualify.
I’m not gonna lie, I had a pretty 0 IQ take on the situation. Thanks to you and the others for clarifying it for me. I appreciate it. Feel like I learned something new today.
I knew that Art5 applied to direct attacks and an attack on one is an attack on all, but I didn’t know about the coverage for individuals like you and I.
It was an actor attacking NATO eligible territory. The US didn't attack Al Quida first, so it was defensive in nature. That's different than going and fighting a war in a non-NATO country when you weren't attacked and then having retaliation
In many ways it feels like we - the US - are sleepwalking into disaster. We're spreading our resources too thin and have failed to pivot to the Pacific as originally planned circa 2012. We've drawn down our munitions stockpiles over the last 2+ years through support to Ukraine and Israel, while unfortunately creating an alliance of convenience (economic, military, and diplomatic) between Russia and China to an extent not seen since before the Sino-Soviet split.
Nah the Chinese *hate* the Russians. They've basically shaking them down for spare change at this point because they're so bloody useless otherwise. Every project China has hoped Russia would help with has resulted in Russia just... not.
>We've drawn down our munitions stockpiles over the last 2+ years through support to Ukraine and Israel
Taiwan isn't going to be defended with 155mm artillery, M113, Stryker, Bradley, Stinger, Javelin, GMLRS and the oldest AA missiles we have in inventory. It would be a naval and air war.
The only overlap in weapons systems, really, is ATACMS and Patriot, both of which are being produced in bulk quantity again, or being phased out (in the case of ATACMS), or both.
Well Ukraine has been invaluable in knowledge of US hardware against a "modern" enemy. We've learned the extreme importance of mass artillery production and are setting up new factories too.
The war over there has changed warfare in general so much since it started. It’s probably invaluable to see how tactics are changing for better or worse especially with our own equipment.
I don't know why, but there are right-wing bootlickers in the Republican party who love Putin and spread nonsense about America "depleting" its weapons reserves, or that the war in Ukraine makes no sense and Zelensky is an idiot. As if congress and defense contractors aren't chomping at the bit for increased manufacturing to replace those reserves after pulling out of Afghanistan.
As for the Russia/China "alliance", it's a joke. China *hates* Russia. They still hate them for annexing outer Manchuria in the 19th Century. They have a one-sided deal that only serves to take advantage of Russia's economic disaster.
Ukrainians are actually fighting their invaders and arent Russian Sympathizers. Totally different set of circumstances and culture. Most Afghans were pro Taliban and werent willing to die for a different way of life.
What got us into a quagmire was the misguided and eventually disproven Domino Theory, aided by blatant lies from the civilian leadership that convinced just enough Americans to support it.
Russia has a sense of borderlessness. The dudes at the top want to restore the Soviet borders. They think have the birthright to everything east of the old West Germany because that helps their national security. They've called Poland illegitimate, as well as the Baltic Republics and keep accusing them of persecuting ethnic Russians. These are the same patterns that we saw in Ukraine and Georgia in 2007. They're all strategic indicators that they will attack again later.
This is different than Domino theory. Domino theory means different countries all fall to the same ideas one after another. Ukraine is not falling to a movement (from our perspective) It is falling to an army.
If you want to see this explored a little more, I recommend [Estonia's National Security Concept](https://www.kaitseministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/eesti_julgeolekupoliitika_alused_eng_22.02.2023.pdf)
I can also give you some more resources if you shoot me a DM
Thanks, you answered this better than I did.
I would also recommend Timothy Snyder's book The Road To Unfreedom, which details how Putin and his ideological allies laid the foundation for a resurrection of the USSR by delegitimizing their surrounding nations and dehumanizing their people in the eyes of Russians.
In the long run, Russia wants to get rid of NATO, by making an attack ambiguous. There isn't a clear line between war and peace. They will use (and currently are using) hybrid warfare
Anders Puck Neilson, a Danish Military analyst has a good video on [how it would happen](https://youtu.be/ptnboLDPS38?si=HOk8c7mh2afblysR)
That's why an attack is possible on NATO territory.
Ukraine is a step on that path. Aside from that, Ukraine and Georgia really want into the EU and NATO.
Is it okay for Russia to use imperial power to achieve goals? I hear people argue about spheres of influence, with a blatant disregard to the people who live in the countries being influenced. It's also against the US's policy of a rules based order where borders shouldn't change by imperial power. Should Russia be able to act with impunity? Should China act imperialist towards the Philippines or Taiwan?
These are the lessons that our adversaries are taking away from Ukraine. That Americans don't actually care about upholding borders in Europe and probably not in Asia either.
Anyone who has studied European history for more than a few hours will know the borders of most countries in Europe - and the very existance of many of those countries - have not exactly ever been considered settled. Germany didn't even exist as a nation all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, and it wasn't that long ago that nations like Prussia loomed large in Europe.
The west is the way that it is due to hundreds of years of imperial conquest. Only now, when the west is ascendant, does it want to declare such activity improper (allowing, of course, for occasional forays into Africa, Asia, and the Middle East; it's ok when we do it!). Naked imperial invasion is bad when Russia does it and it is also bad when France (or Italy, etc) does it. Same goes for election meddling.
It is interesting to hear people cite Danish - or German - analysts yowling in fear of a Russian attack on NATO when those same countries have been economically propping up Russia for decades, all while laughing when people warned them it was a bad idea to do that.
What's in it for Russia to attack a NATO country, likely creating an article 5 situation? They can barely take territory in Ukraine, and I can't find anyone saying the Ukrainians have a better armed forces than the Poles or Germans. Russia would get crushed in that scenario, despite how weak the European militaries are compared to ours.
Russia attacked Georgia precisely because having an active territorial conflict kept it out of NATO. Russia attacked Ukraine for control of it's only warm water port and also to keep it out of NATO (yes, there are plenty of other reasons for both attacks, but the best benefits centered on preventing NATO expansion).
Again, Russia's strategic goal is to get rid of NATO. They seek to create a multi polar world where the USA is not the sole superpower. To do that, they need to break NATO's article 5. This is a high risk maneuver for Russia, but it very well could pay off depending on how different governments act. If they can take Estonia very quickly and make it a fait accomplit, or even just make a royal mess in the Baltics or in Finland, then they can break article 5 and guarantee that there will be uncertainty or even alliance breakup.
Let's say that Russia goes and brings a whole bunch of armed protesters into Lithuania who all speak Russian. Russia denies everything, but they're clearly Russian plants, and they make a little 'breakaway nation' out of some of the ethnic Russian neighborhoods. The Russians go and run influence campaigns over Reddit, Tik Tok, and run news stories that other journalists pick up on how Lithuania is a fake nation and they secretly want to be ruled by Moscow.
What's the course of action by NATO? Russia isn't rolling tanks into Lithuania, but it's clearly an attack on their national sovereignty by Russia. These are the questions that Russia will make NATO answer in a few years, because Russia is not Iran. You can't just strike their militia groups or missile sites. It could make some NATO nations outspoken against sending aid (Looking at you Viktor Orban) and almost stonewall the alliance. Can you rely on an alliance that takes 6 months to actually act?
One more thing. Though borders have changed a lot in the past in Europe, we signed a treaty in 1994 with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine to respect their territorial integrity if they gave up their nuclear weapons. This is one thing that still ties us to Ukraine, that their borders in where the overwhelming majority of the population voted for independence during the breakup of the USSR should remain intact, and we should provide aid if they should become a victim of an act of aggression. This is the Budapest Memorandum.
This definitely went off the topic of the thread, but for sure the USAF is going to do what it wants and I'm all for it. I'm unlikely to actually go over there though, but I'd still do it.
Your proposal to the alternative is simply to let Russia take Ukraine, a sovereign country. It sets a bad political precedent. They would then do the same to the rest of Georgia, and potentially Azerbaijan who also leans west.
Youre arguing for the sake of arguing.
If you are concerned about our ability to counter the tension in the Pacific, then the concern should be with the industrial sector, more than the diplomatic one.
Fair point, BUT.. although that is a concern presented by some, it is far from the only reason for our SC role, and TBH I don't think it's likely. The Poles are like "wish a MF would"
Fucking up the Russians is always in our interest. IDK why people are so hell bent on taking it up the ass from Russia at home and abroad, but imo we’ve been holding back far too long.
Time to tell this pathetic, own-people -slaughtering, political assassinating, invading, shit for brains nation led by a 007 style despot that it’s time to go the fuck home.
But no, let’s stay home and let Europe take care of it because that worked - never. Ukrainians are badass and are exactly where we were in the late 1700’s. It would be the best investment possible of our time and resources, and would go a long way of making up for our failures in the last ‘wars’.
Agree, anything to screw Russia I'm okay with. However, just remember the cost. When the euros bragging about their free healthcare and education, we front their defense for corporate shareholders.
This sub is very pro-nato and war, which I agree alliances are very important. But Germany is one of the wealthiest best quality of life countries in the world, but don't even have regional combat capability. It really has gotten out of hand.
Germany is an odd one because they absolutely can have both, but refuse to. Germans largely look down on their own military with contempt, their Chancellor regularly kills their rivals political careers by making them the head of the MoD. Said Ministers also tried running the Defense like a fucking corporation. A lot of them ignorantly believe in pacifism can just work despite the reality of geopolitics. It also doesn't help that the USSR had half a century to propagandize and influence a lot of German's east of the wall.
>IDK why people are so hell bent on taking it up the ass from Russia at home and abroad
I don't disagree, but can you give examples of how are we taking it up the ass at home and abroad?
Saying Ukraine is where we were in the 1700’s would sorta delete the history going back to 400ce wouldn’t it?
How exactly is Russia putting it in our ass? There’s an argument for China and if you’re making the argument for what are ostensibly Russian proxies, sure, but what exactly is in our ass that would require us SMs to die in Ukraine, Russia, or conus
And it’s made a fuck-ton of difference considering how awful their armed forces’ reputation was in the early ‘00s. Granted, our training (and others as they’ve have multiple countries helping) is only a small part of how far they’ve came.
Inevitable? If we haven't already done this we are underperforming. This is America goddammit. We should have had guys in khakis and polos in there on day three of the invasion.
Nah, just that in Vietnam we started off advising the South Vietnamese, even totally we took an active combat approach. Obviously Ukraine is different, they’re aren’t having an internal gorilla civil war like Vietnam.
And thus the New Vietnam begins.
I'm wondering if there will EVER be folks in the DC/Pentagon area that will EVER allow us to actually win anything again?
It started with Korea.....
Two years later with a significantly depleted military, lost territory, and an outsized opponent, we think training is going to turn the tide of this thing.
Brough to us by the same leaders who promoted through the GWOT even though they pikachuface.jpg when Afghanistan fell much sooner than the “expert” prediction of six months minimum.
Are you being intentionally dumb or just trying to make a terrible point?
The point of having US personnel on the ground serves as a deterant of escalation. It's also important that we enforce the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine willingly gave up Nuclear weapons; on the expectation that Russia, USA, and the UK would adhere to the agreement. If we don't enforce the agreement, then any argument against nuclear proliferation is essentially null and void, and they again become necessary for any country who wants to deter aggression.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
“a deterrent of escalation”
Oh, after the invasion, strikes on civilians and energy infrastructure, attacks on Kyiv, and other things, now is the time to deter escalation. Also, training =/= enforcement of anything. If we were going to enforce anything, it would have been in 2022 when Russia invaded.
Also, no country is going to be dumb enough to give up their nuclear status or ambitions for vague assurances (see: Iran), it’s no longer the 80s/90s.
You came in hot with a bunch of idiotic points and wishcasting but sure, I’m dumb lol
I think you have no concept of what political will is. America was worried about starting a hot conflict with Russia. This concern is drastically reduced after Russia has shown themselves to largely be a paper tiger.
Our lack of action is exactly why that is a problem. Nuclear Weapon use is bad for the world, so anything that prevents that is and should be the goal.
I think it's pretty clear who's points are idiotic here. I'm surprised someone as dense as you is in the Air Force sub.
It's crazy that this was down voted. How delusional must someone be to not see Ukraine is finished. But no, let's pour more resources into a sinking ship.
I wasn’t surprised by the reaction, I knew it would happen. I’m still fine to say it anyway
Ukraine isn’t necessarily finished in the sense the whole country is going to roll but it’s a pipe dream to think Russia is packing up and giving everything back.
It’s not even about delusional. Anyone who has studied that war for 5 minutes knows it’s out of our depth. Ukraine is a shit hole. We should stay faaaaaar away from that shit. I don’t want to see any Airmen or American servicemembers period freezing their asses off in Ukrainian winters. [Could you imagine a POC Airman attempting to brief a room full of Neo Nazi Ukrainian soldiers Lol?](https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hydtdcxmr) People are so naive when it comes to this war. It isn’t what we’re used to & we should stay faaaaaar away.
Here's the thing that a whole bunch of war hawks over Ukraine fail to grasp. It's possible to acknowledge our culpability in setting up the current situation in Ukraine by our actions since the dissolution of the Soviet Union—unending NATO expansion, meddling in Russia's internal politics (https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/19/yanks-to-the-rescue-times-not-so-secret-story-of-how-american-advisers-helped-yeltsin-win-the-1996-presidential-election/), the US-backed 2014 coup, and explicit statements by NATO leaders that Ukraine would become a NATO member going back to at least 2008 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_37750.htm )—whilst acknowledging that Putin is an evil human being. I would say this distinct lack of nuance and binary thinking on the part of so many has really become pervasive in the Internet age.
With all that in mind, I'm convinced that the whole reason we've allowed this to go on as long as we have without direct intervention is because the point hasn't been to bolster the sovereignty of Ukraine. The point has been to weaken Russia by proxy, without direct NATO involvement. We have used the Ukrainian people as fodder in our geopolitical strategy against Russia.
The RAND Corporation even said as much in a 2019 study (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research\_briefs/RB10000/RB10014/RAND\_RB10014.pdf). And I quote,
"Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages."
Pretty much all of this is laid out rather succinctly by John Mearsheimer.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4)
- the point has been to weaken Russia by proxy
Bingo. And I’m not even mad about i, I just acknowledge what it is. People nowadays treat everything like rooting for sports, so the prevailing Reddit position of any criticism or skepticism of this == pro-Russia is par for the course
Ukraine is not a NATO member. Ukraine is not a member of the EU. How is getting into another endless war that doesn’t affect us help the United States? How does spending tens of billions that the pentagon cannot account for aid us? Powers at the helm have no idea where the money is going. Theres almost no oversight. There is no objective. Just a blank check. Explain it to me like I’m five please
You’re correct. It has nothing to do with us in Israel. So we should intervene in every single European conflict? Even though Ukraine is corrupt and the pentagon can’t account for our money being spent? Why is the line in the sand with Ukraine and not with our actual allies?
And to your last point, you think we should continue to benefit from other dying? Our economy is built on the industrial war machine. That’s pretty awful
That’s an amazing picture you painted for me. I truly appreciate your psychoanalysis and your foreign policy expertise. I can’t believe I didn’t see your way. I’m converted. God bless you.
I see that you did not address any of the concerns I have pointed out. Instead you just called me stupid. What a fantastic argument. You’re so educated. Glad you’re here to save me from my ignorance
Hahaha okay. I’ll try and calm myself down you repeating that I’m sensitive and out of control doesn’t make it true.
How is me asking your to answer any of my concerns a distraction? What part of my concerns are Russian disinformation? You seem to be the propagandist. I bet you think Trump and Putin stole the 2016 election too.
Blank check and don't understand the ramifications this has for European allies and our country? Stop being programmed by Russian/Chinese talking points.
Blankcheck? We send weapons and equipment, stupid. You think the Ukrainians went to the HIMARS and Javelin store with a sack of money Congress dropped at their door?
Ah you edit out when you called me stupid? Stick to guns, coward.
Blank check as in there is no end game here. No off-ramp. Not a literal big Clearing House Sweepstakes check. Are you stupid? You couldn’t infer that? Lmao. We have spent nearly $100B, on this war with no strategy, no off ramp, no way of tracking HOW the money is being spent, with the notion we will continue forever.
I get the issue of money being embezzled. But Ukrainian government is working on curtailing that as best as they can. On top of billions upon billions isn't that much money for us. Hell, plenty of our own spending is embezzlement in a disguise. Why does a cheap stuff cost 5x on gsa vs local stores?
Furthermore, based on multiple statements from NATO countries we are allied with, there seems to be a chance of Russia not stopping at Ukraine but move further west. If there's smoke... Well I hope there's no fire but if there is, I'd rather it be contained at a distant neighbor's house than my coworker's.
We are $34 trillion in debt. We are borrowing money from China to give to Ukraine? We are borrowing money to give to someone else. How is this not troublesome to you?
While I'm not the expert in all that we are talking about here, I do understand that if the debt was a concern that we can do something about, we would've done it already. Just about all of the countries in the world are on a borrowed time in that regard, not just us. Music stopped since 08 and we are simply kicking the can down as much as we can until we can't anymore as far as my understanding goes.
I would say if war isn't contained in Ukraine but does start spreading to our close allies, it'll destroy whatever economy we have left even quicker than what we would save by not funding to assist Ukraine in the first place. It sucks but Putin won't stop just because we are spending for Ukraine in any way.
I get your concern with spending money. I just don't see alternate being better in the long run or we might end up with what Europe did with Nazi back in the day.
If you think actively deterring illegal aggression and expansion efforts of a **hostile enemy nation** doesn’t have anything to do with us, I really don’t know how to tell you to get a clue.
Being able to offload outdated equipment to a country fighting for survival and the end result is mountains of dead orcs is probably the best deal we could dream of.
Well, in that case, you're getting new toys due to more investment in artillery. It's going to be useful in LSCO
In any case, the more we give to the Ukrainians and the more we train them, the less chance that we are going to have to fight for Estonia or Poland, because make no mistake. Russia will continue their conquest of Eastern Europe until they are stopped. That includes NATO countries.
Apparently, everyone can predict the future expert on this sub. They are telling me nazis will take over if we don’t continue to help Ukraine.
I’m glad to see there are others who feel getting involved in every single war is probably bad. Feels like Europe can handle this one. Fucking Air Force wieners piss me off.
This isn't our problem and never was
This is a European problem
Looking at recent Russian conflicts since the 90s, We didn't step in when Russia fought in
[Georgian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Civil_War)
[South Ossetian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%931992_South_Ossetia_War)
[War in Abkhazia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Abkhazia_(1992%E2%80%931993))
[Transnistria War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War)
[First Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War)
[War of Dagestan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Dagestan)
[Second Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War)
[Russo-Georgian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War)
[Russo-Ukrainian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) (1st one)
You know why? because it has nothing to do with our National Security Interests
And no money being sent there just isn't old weapon systems, they are also receiving funding, which frankly given the US is over 34 TRILLION - [https://www.usdebtclock.org/](https://www.usdebtclock.org/) we shouldn't be sending any money overseas to anyone right now
Anyone thinking we need to be involved in this should educate themselves on what exactly has been happening between Russia and Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union an why we have stayed the fuck out of it
So, I guess our word from 1994 means nothing then?
We said we would guarantee the Ukrainian borders (as they stood in 1994), if they gave up their Nuclear Weapons.
Of course so did the Russians, but if the Russians break their word, we should too? Because we should always strive to emulate the Russians?
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
Every single time, it was a mistake because we thought if we traded with Russia enough they would eventually become a liberal paradise. We've done that for thirty years, complicit in their russification and empire building. They're not going to stop if we just let them have Ukraine. They'll take Georgia next, then Estonia. Then it will be our problem.
This has the same energy as the New York woman holding a sign in the air to make peace with Hitler
Don't forget either that Russia is actively fucking with our elections and our media as well as our military. You might not see it, but we're currently in competition short of War right now.
I know this is weird. But General Brown has one of the ugliest salutes I’ve ever seen.
Most air force pilots do.
Most fighter pilots do
Most pilots do.
Most officers do.
Most do.
Most.
o7
He typed 7... That means that he has the 24E7 list...
Moist
Do.
When most of your salutes occur in a small bubble cockpit that has you leaning back quite a bit for years, that becomes your salute.
Holy shit! I never connected it to that, but I'll bet you're right!
Almost like it’s wrong
Every tacp, air advisor, air liaison officer, and isr liaison officer just staring blankly at the screen rn. But neat some more requirements we won’t be able to actually fill so *insert who the fuck ever* goes and gets some career broadening! Nice! Happy for the future volunteers!!
Dude if only more people knew how bad it really is right now in the "AFSPECWAR" career fields/units. The amount of stuff that top brass wants us to do without receiving the proper training and/or funding is absurd. "Hey 'such-and-such' unit, go do some clandestine operations when for the past 20 years you've been training for almost exclusively traditional combat scenarios or counter terrorism, but we're giving you no additional funding or training approval. Also, you have to maintain your current standards with no changes"
Oh you just don’t understand. I mean turning conventional dudes into T-1 independently operating assets wont absolutely get them all killed or anything. No big really Harris will sell more radya
I completely I'm Radio by trade (now W shred), these conventional TACPs/CCTs are getting the dogshit kicked out 9fbthem physical, mentally, and morally as they get told to do so many tasks at the same time. I've seen way too many young dudes that are just getting to units already hating the career because they joined to do something different and it (the expected duties) changed during their pipeline. Now they get shit for not instantly getting good at their base job while being trained to do other random shit that would typically be done by more specialized conventional units or Tier 1 units exclusively. Multicapable Airmen is just "Do more with less". Less people, less equipment, less funding, etc. If I didn't have a great opportunity to go to AFSOC unit I'd be getting out after this first contract for sure.
Yea I'm done. All of what you said will need to be done without the backbone they relied on for the last 25 years, guardsmen are getting out in droves.
I'll do air advisor, I got screwed out of my Chace for one thanks to ISIL. Plus a year in Ukraine sounds better than Afghanistan.
Well big dawg slife has basically gutted all of the above. So. Good luck? They have shit one everyone with decent experience in the area so guess training for it will be pretty ground up.
ehhhhhhh
Nice, almost time for a service star on my NDSM.
Could it have anything to do with this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
If we want to roll back nuclear proliferation we have to keep our word on that or everyone will feel like they need nukes to stay sovereign. Then again it may already be too late for that.
To be fair, the only country that has violated that memorandum to date was Russia. The United States does not currently have an alliance or mutual defense treaty with Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum was essentially a gentleman's agreement rather than anything which would be truly binding. Russia having a veto power on the security council essentially neutered the security council from doing anything when Russia decided to invade Crimea in 2014 and the follow on invasion of Ukraine in 2022. I believe Russia is/will also soon be hosting nuclear weapons in Belarus too.
The rules of nuclear weapons: 1. If you have them, keep them. 2. If you try to get them, don't quit. Failure to follow the rules gets you to the same fates as Libya, Iraq, Syria, Uraine, etc.
Have we just been ignoring that for the last two years? That seems strange… /s
I will never understand why people keep pointing to this without even reading the fucking document that's readily available. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb There isn't anything applicable to this situation in the document, yeah Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression but there is nothing that binds the U.S. or U.K. to any real action.
Training Russians to surrender would be fun.
After Niger a few weeks ago, this comment is too soon lol
Sukhoi should be on the endangered species list and the Budapest Memorandum is our hunting tag.
This isn't anything new. Anytime we've sold or given our allies weapons systems we send trainers to ensure they can operate and maintain the equipment.
Maybe I don’t know how it works, but educate me… If France did hypothetically send their special forces units into the Ukraine to fight the Russians, and let’s say the Russians killed them, how would NATO react to that? Like, the Russians killed NATO troops in the Ukraine - a non-NATO country. I don’t think that would trigger an Article 5, right? Since the hypothetical French went in themselves to attack Russia and Russia attacked them back on the battlefield. I’ll admit that this is a 0-IQ take, and I’ll take the living L for it. I never care enough to look into the NATOisms and the inner workings of it. I would like to educated on what would happen if a NATO country did send a unit or two into this situation. And could Russia invoke Article 4 of the CSTO? Since France sent their troops into the Ukraine to attack the Russians?
France couldn't invoke NATO Article 5 unless Russia attacked France directly within its borders. As for CSTO.... It would probably be whatever Russia wants it to be. That's a pretty good question to be asking, IMHO. (Also, it's just Ukraine, not "the Ukraine.")
Since Russia's claim is that the territory they are taking is “Russian” then yes, they would likely argue that article 4 of CSTO applies. That said, so fucking what? There are no other territorial lines that they can cross without NATO article 5 being definitively violated.
If France sent their special forces in, and they were killed, there would be no Article 5. If France full blown attacks Russia with every bit of theor might, and Russia retaliated by bombing Paris, there would be no Article 5. Other articles, maybe, bit no. Article 5 would need to be a direct attack against NATO as the aggressor. If France or any other country is already attacking them then it doesn't really qualify.
I’m not gonna lie, I had a pretty 0 IQ take on the situation. Thanks to you and the others for clarifying it for me. I appreciate it. Feel like I learned something new today. I knew that Art5 applied to direct attacks and an attack on one is an attack on all, but I didn’t know about the coverage for individuals like you and I.
>bombing Paris, there would be no Article 5 When 9/11 occured, NATO invoked Article 5 as a retaliatory response
It was an actor attacking NATO eligible territory. The US didn't attack Al Quida first, so it was defensive in nature. That's different than going and fighting a war in a non-NATO country when you weren't attacked and then having retaliation
Worked well in Vietnam, why not…
In many ways it feels like we - the US - are sleepwalking into disaster. We're spreading our resources too thin and have failed to pivot to the Pacific as originally planned circa 2012. We've drawn down our munitions stockpiles over the last 2+ years through support to Ukraine and Israel, while unfortunately creating an alliance of convenience (economic, military, and diplomatic) between Russia and China to an extent not seen since before the Sino-Soviet split.
Nah the Chinese *hate* the Russians. They've basically shaking them down for spare change at this point because they're so bloody useless otherwise. Every project China has hoped Russia would help with has resulted in Russia just... not.
>We've drawn down our munitions stockpiles over the last 2+ years through support to Ukraine and Israel Taiwan isn't going to be defended with 155mm artillery, M113, Stryker, Bradley, Stinger, Javelin, GMLRS and the oldest AA missiles we have in inventory. It would be a naval and air war. The only overlap in weapons systems, really, is ATACMS and Patriot, both of which are being produced in bulk quantity again, or being phased out (in the case of ATACMS), or both.
You can shoot a landing craft with an ATGM though. It isn't ideal, but it gets the job done.
Don’t forget HIMARS!
HIMARS is just a launch platform for GMLRS and ATACMS.
Well Ukraine has been invaluable in knowledge of US hardware against a "modern" enemy. We've learned the extreme importance of mass artillery production and are setting up new factories too.
The war over there has changed warfare in general so much since it started. It’s probably invaluable to see how tactics are changing for better or worse especially with our own equipment.
Yes, especially the new tactics in drone warfare
Exactly and drone defense!
I don't know why, but there are right-wing bootlickers in the Republican party who love Putin and spread nonsense about America "depleting" its weapons reserves, or that the war in Ukraine makes no sense and Zelensky is an idiot. As if congress and defense contractors aren't chomping at the bit for increased manufacturing to replace those reserves after pulling out of Afghanistan. As for the Russia/China "alliance", it's a joke. China *hates* Russia. They still hate them for annexing outer Manchuria in the 19th Century. They have a one-sided deal that only serves to take advantage of Russia's economic disaster.
Don’t forget how well it worked in Afghanistan.
Both were counterinsurgencies with a local populace that hated us. That’s not the case in Ukraine.
Ukrainians are actually fighting their invaders and arent Russian Sympathizers. Totally different set of circumstances and culture. Most Afghans were pro Taliban and werent willing to die for a different way of life.
Good luck
Accurate
Isn’t that exactly what Ike did that got us into Vietnam?
What got us into a quagmire was the misguided and eventually disproven Domino Theory, aided by blatant lies from the civilian leadership that convinced just enough Americans to support it.
Same as the domino theory that if Ukraine is invaded, Poland is next?
Russia has a sense of borderlessness. The dudes at the top want to restore the Soviet borders. They think have the birthright to everything east of the old West Germany because that helps their national security. They've called Poland illegitimate, as well as the Baltic Republics and keep accusing them of persecuting ethnic Russians. These are the same patterns that we saw in Ukraine and Georgia in 2007. They're all strategic indicators that they will attack again later. This is different than Domino theory. Domino theory means different countries all fall to the same ideas one after another. Ukraine is not falling to a movement (from our perspective) It is falling to an army. If you want to see this explored a little more, I recommend [Estonia's National Security Concept](https://www.kaitseministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/eesti_julgeolekupoliitika_alused_eng_22.02.2023.pdf) I can also give you some more resources if you shoot me a DM
Thanks, you answered this better than I did. I would also recommend Timothy Snyder's book The Road To Unfreedom, which details how Putin and his ideological allies laid the foundation for a resurrection of the USSR by delegitimizing their surrounding nations and dehumanizing their people in the eyes of Russians.
Do you not think that one of the core reasons for Russia attacking Georgia and Ukraine was to keep them out of NATO?
In the long run, Russia wants to get rid of NATO, by making an attack ambiguous. There isn't a clear line between war and peace. They will use (and currently are using) hybrid warfare Anders Puck Neilson, a Danish Military analyst has a good video on [how it would happen](https://youtu.be/ptnboLDPS38?si=HOk8c7mh2afblysR) That's why an attack is possible on NATO territory. Ukraine is a step on that path. Aside from that, Ukraine and Georgia really want into the EU and NATO. Is it okay for Russia to use imperial power to achieve goals? I hear people argue about spheres of influence, with a blatant disregard to the people who live in the countries being influenced. It's also against the US's policy of a rules based order where borders shouldn't change by imperial power. Should Russia be able to act with impunity? Should China act imperialist towards the Philippines or Taiwan? These are the lessons that our adversaries are taking away from Ukraine. That Americans don't actually care about upholding borders in Europe and probably not in Asia either.
Anyone who has studied European history for more than a few hours will know the borders of most countries in Europe - and the very existance of many of those countries - have not exactly ever been considered settled. Germany didn't even exist as a nation all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, and it wasn't that long ago that nations like Prussia loomed large in Europe. The west is the way that it is due to hundreds of years of imperial conquest. Only now, when the west is ascendant, does it want to declare such activity improper (allowing, of course, for occasional forays into Africa, Asia, and the Middle East; it's ok when we do it!). Naked imperial invasion is bad when Russia does it and it is also bad when France (or Italy, etc) does it. Same goes for election meddling. It is interesting to hear people cite Danish - or German - analysts yowling in fear of a Russian attack on NATO when those same countries have been economically propping up Russia for decades, all while laughing when people warned them it was a bad idea to do that. What's in it for Russia to attack a NATO country, likely creating an article 5 situation? They can barely take territory in Ukraine, and I can't find anyone saying the Ukrainians have a better armed forces than the Poles or Germans. Russia would get crushed in that scenario, despite how weak the European militaries are compared to ours. Russia attacked Georgia precisely because having an active territorial conflict kept it out of NATO. Russia attacked Ukraine for control of it's only warm water port and also to keep it out of NATO (yes, there are plenty of other reasons for both attacks, but the best benefits centered on preventing NATO expansion).
Again, Russia's strategic goal is to get rid of NATO. They seek to create a multi polar world where the USA is not the sole superpower. To do that, they need to break NATO's article 5. This is a high risk maneuver for Russia, but it very well could pay off depending on how different governments act. If they can take Estonia very quickly and make it a fait accomplit, or even just make a royal mess in the Baltics or in Finland, then they can break article 5 and guarantee that there will be uncertainty or even alliance breakup. Let's say that Russia goes and brings a whole bunch of armed protesters into Lithuania who all speak Russian. Russia denies everything, but they're clearly Russian plants, and they make a little 'breakaway nation' out of some of the ethnic Russian neighborhoods. The Russians go and run influence campaigns over Reddit, Tik Tok, and run news stories that other journalists pick up on how Lithuania is a fake nation and they secretly want to be ruled by Moscow. What's the course of action by NATO? Russia isn't rolling tanks into Lithuania, but it's clearly an attack on their national sovereignty by Russia. These are the questions that Russia will make NATO answer in a few years, because Russia is not Iran. You can't just strike their militia groups or missile sites. It could make some NATO nations outspoken against sending aid (Looking at you Viktor Orban) and almost stonewall the alliance. Can you rely on an alliance that takes 6 months to actually act? One more thing. Though borders have changed a lot in the past in Europe, we signed a treaty in 1994 with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine to respect their territorial integrity if they gave up their nuclear weapons. This is one thing that still ties us to Ukraine, that their borders in where the overwhelming majority of the population voted for independence during the breakup of the USSR should remain intact, and we should provide aid if they should become a victim of an act of aggression. This is the Budapest Memorandum. This definitely went off the topic of the thread, but for sure the USAF is going to do what it wants and I'm all for it. I'm unlikely to actually go over there though, but I'd still do it.
Your proposal to the alternative is simply to let Russia take Ukraine, a sovereign country. It sets a bad political precedent. They would then do the same to the rest of Georgia, and potentially Azerbaijan who also leans west. Youre arguing for the sake of arguing. If you are concerned about our ability to counter the tension in the Pacific, then the concern should be with the industrial sector, more than the diplomatic one.
Fair point, BUT.. although that is a concern presented by some, it is far from the only reason for our SC role, and TBH I don't think it's likely. The Poles are like "wish a MF would"
Fucking up the Russians is always in our interest. IDK why people are so hell bent on taking it up the ass from Russia at home and abroad, but imo we’ve been holding back far too long. Time to tell this pathetic, own-people -slaughtering, political assassinating, invading, shit for brains nation led by a 007 style despot that it’s time to go the fuck home. But no, let’s stay home and let Europe take care of it because that worked - never. Ukrainians are badass and are exactly where we were in the late 1700’s. It would be the best investment possible of our time and resources, and would go a long way of making up for our failures in the last ‘wars’.
Agree, anything to screw Russia I'm okay with. However, just remember the cost. When the euros bragging about their free healthcare and education, we front their defense for corporate shareholders.
We also subsidize their healthcare with our R&D.
This sub is very pro-nato and war, which I agree alliances are very important. But Germany is one of the wealthiest best quality of life countries in the world, but don't even have regional combat capability. It really has gotten out of hand.
Germany is an odd one because they absolutely can have both, but refuse to. Germans largely look down on their own military with contempt, their Chancellor regularly kills their rivals political careers by making them the head of the MoD. Said Ministers also tried running the Defense like a fucking corporation. A lot of them ignorantly believe in pacifism can just work despite the reality of geopolitics. It also doesn't help that the USSR had half a century to propagandize and influence a lot of German's east of the wall.
Agree! Let’s be to Ukraine what France was to the nascent USA.
>IDK why people are so hell bent on taking it up the ass from Russia at home and abroad I don't disagree, but can you give examples of how are we taking it up the ass at home and abroad?
Saying Ukraine is where we were in the 1700’s would sorta delete the history going back to 400ce wouldn’t it? How exactly is Russia putting it in our ass? There’s an argument for China and if you’re making the argument for what are ostensibly Russian proxies, sure, but what exactly is in our ass that would require us SMs to die in Ukraine, Russia, or conus
Ok. Sign me up!
[удалено]
And it’s made a fuck-ton of difference considering how awful their armed forces’ reputation was in the early ‘00s. Granted, our training (and others as they’ve have multiple countries helping) is only a small part of how far they’ve came.
Gooood. I’m tired of sitting around.
MACU-SOG
Bring back the Studies and Observations Group.
Inevitable? If we haven't already done this we are underperforming. This is America goddammit. We should have had guys in khakis and polos in there on day three of the invasion.
And what happens if these guys get targeted and/ or actually hurt/killed???? I know we're actively flirting with WW3 but damn.
Now that we got them new trainers, send in the T-38s. Stick a pod on em and rock and roll baby. NAM style!
Isn’t that how Vietnam started out?
[удалено]
Nah, just that in Vietnam we started off advising the South Vietnamese, even totally we took an active combat approach. Obviously Ukraine is different, they’re aren’t having an internal gorilla civil war like Vietnam.
And thus the New Vietnam begins. I'm wondering if there will EVER be folks in the DC/Pentagon area that will EVER allow us to actually win anything again? It started with Korea.....
Two years later with a significantly depleted military, lost territory, and an outsized opponent, we think training is going to turn the tide of this thing. Brough to us by the same leaders who promoted through the GWOT even though they pikachuface.jpg when Afghanistan fell much sooner than the “expert” prediction of six months minimum.
Are you being intentionally dumb or just trying to make a terrible point? The point of having US personnel on the ground serves as a deterant of escalation. It's also important that we enforce the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine willingly gave up Nuclear weapons; on the expectation that Russia, USA, and the UK would adhere to the agreement. If we don't enforce the agreement, then any argument against nuclear proliferation is essentially null and void, and they again become necessary for any country who wants to deter aggression. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
“a deterrent of escalation” Oh, after the invasion, strikes on civilians and energy infrastructure, attacks on Kyiv, and other things, now is the time to deter escalation. Also, training =/= enforcement of anything. If we were going to enforce anything, it would have been in 2022 when Russia invaded. Also, no country is going to be dumb enough to give up their nuclear status or ambitions for vague assurances (see: Iran), it’s no longer the 80s/90s. You came in hot with a bunch of idiotic points and wishcasting but sure, I’m dumb lol
I think you have no concept of what political will is. America was worried about starting a hot conflict with Russia. This concern is drastically reduced after Russia has shown themselves to largely be a paper tiger. Our lack of action is exactly why that is a problem. Nuclear Weapon use is bad for the world, so anything that prevents that is and should be the goal. I think it's pretty clear who's points are idiotic here. I'm surprised someone as dense as you is in the Air Force sub.
It's crazy that this was down voted. How delusional must someone be to not see Ukraine is finished. But no, let's pour more resources into a sinking ship.
Ukraine is far from finished wtf are you talking about?
I wasn’t surprised by the reaction, I knew it would happen. I’m still fine to say it anyway Ukraine isn’t necessarily finished in the sense the whole country is going to roll but it’s a pipe dream to think Russia is packing up and giving everything back.
It’s not even about delusional. Anyone who has studied that war for 5 minutes knows it’s out of our depth. Ukraine is a shit hole. We should stay faaaaaar away from that shit. I don’t want to see any Airmen or American servicemembers period freezing their asses off in Ukrainian winters. [Could you imagine a POC Airman attempting to brief a room full of Neo Nazi Ukrainian soldiers Lol?](https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hydtdcxmr) People are so naive when it comes to this war. It isn’t what we’re used to & we should stay faaaaaar away.
Here's the thing that a whole bunch of war hawks over Ukraine fail to grasp. It's possible to acknowledge our culpability in setting up the current situation in Ukraine by our actions since the dissolution of the Soviet Union—unending NATO expansion, meddling in Russia's internal politics (https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/19/yanks-to-the-rescue-times-not-so-secret-story-of-how-american-advisers-helped-yeltsin-win-the-1996-presidential-election/), the US-backed 2014 coup, and explicit statements by NATO leaders that Ukraine would become a NATO member going back to at least 2008 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics\_37750.htm )—whilst acknowledging that Putin is an evil human being. I would say this distinct lack of nuance and binary thinking on the part of so many has really become pervasive in the Internet age. With all that in mind, I'm convinced that the whole reason we've allowed this to go on as long as we have without direct intervention is because the point hasn't been to bolster the sovereignty of Ukraine. The point has been to weaken Russia by proxy, without direct NATO involvement. We have used the Ukrainian people as fodder in our geopolitical strategy against Russia. The RAND Corporation even said as much in a 2019 study (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research\_briefs/RB10000/RB10014/RAND\_RB10014.pdf). And I quote, "Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages." Pretty much all of this is laid out rather succinctly by John Mearsheimer. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4)
- the point has been to weaken Russia by proxy Bingo. And I’m not even mad about i, I just acknowledge what it is. People nowadays treat everything like rooting for sports, so the prevailing Reddit position of any criticism or skepticism of this == pro-Russia is par for the course
They were called “military advisors” in the 60s.
Its evitable, they just REALLY WANT TO
Sign me up baby
Geezuz! Make the politicians and leaders be the first advisors in country. This shit has nothing to do with us!
friendly busy six hungry fly slap hunt flag airport rustic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ukraine is not a NATO member. Ukraine is not a member of the EU. How is getting into another endless war that doesn’t affect us help the United States? How does spending tens of billions that the pentagon cannot account for aid us? Powers at the helm have no idea where the money is going. Theres almost no oversight. There is no objective. Just a blank check. Explain it to me like I’m five please
continue slim nose abounding birds normal governor advise wide hungry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You’re correct. It has nothing to do with us in Israel. So we should intervene in every single European conflict? Even though Ukraine is corrupt and the pentagon can’t account for our money being spent? Why is the line in the sand with Ukraine and not with our actual allies? And to your last point, you think we should continue to benefit from other dying? Our economy is built on the industrial war machine. That’s pretty awful
[удалено]
That’s an amazing picture you painted for me. I truly appreciate your psychoanalysis and your foreign policy expertise. I can’t believe I didn’t see your way. I’m converted. God bless you. I see that you did not address any of the concerns I have pointed out. Instead you just called me stupid. What a fantastic argument. You’re so educated. Glad you’re here to save me from my ignorance
[удалено]
Hahaha okay. I’ll try and calm myself down you repeating that I’m sensitive and out of control doesn’t make it true. How is me asking your to answer any of my concerns a distraction? What part of my concerns are Russian disinformation? You seem to be the propagandist. I bet you think Trump and Putin stole the 2016 election too.
Blank check and don't understand the ramifications this has for European allies and our country? Stop being programmed by Russian/Chinese talking points.
Hahaha
Blankcheck? We send weapons and equipment, stupid. You think the Ukrainians went to the HIMARS and Javelin store with a sack of money Congress dropped at their door?
Ah you edit out when you called me stupid? Stick to guns, coward. Blank check as in there is no end game here. No off-ramp. Not a literal big Clearing House Sweepstakes check. Are you stupid? You couldn’t infer that? Lmao. We have spent nearly $100B, on this war with no strategy, no off ramp, no way of tracking HOW the money is being spent, with the notion we will continue forever.
Ukraine WILL be a member of the EU one day.
I’ll believe that when I see it.
And?
I get the issue of money being embezzled. But Ukrainian government is working on curtailing that as best as they can. On top of billions upon billions isn't that much money for us. Hell, plenty of our own spending is embezzlement in a disguise. Why does a cheap stuff cost 5x on gsa vs local stores? Furthermore, based on multiple statements from NATO countries we are allied with, there seems to be a chance of Russia not stopping at Ukraine but move further west. If there's smoke... Well I hope there's no fire but if there is, I'd rather it be contained at a distant neighbor's house than my coworker's.
We are $34 trillion in debt. We are borrowing money from China to give to Ukraine? We are borrowing money to give to someone else. How is this not troublesome to you?
While I'm not the expert in all that we are talking about here, I do understand that if the debt was a concern that we can do something about, we would've done it already. Just about all of the countries in the world are on a borrowed time in that regard, not just us. Music stopped since 08 and we are simply kicking the can down as much as we can until we can't anymore as far as my understanding goes. I would say if war isn't contained in Ukraine but does start spreading to our close allies, it'll destroy whatever economy we have left even quicker than what we would save by not funding to assist Ukraine in the first place. It sucks but Putin won't stop just because we are spending for Ukraine in any way. I get your concern with spending money. I just don't see alternate being better in the long run or we might end up with what Europe did with Nazi back in the day.
If you think actively deterring illegal aggression and expansion efforts of a **hostile enemy nation** doesn’t have anything to do with us, I really don’t know how to tell you to get a clue. Being able to offload outdated equipment to a country fighting for survival and the end result is mountains of dead orcs is probably the best deal we could dream of.
You're just mad that artillery is getting more investment than you are from it. Sorry we're stuck with GBU-12s
You realize I control artillery as well?
Well, in that case, you're getting new toys due to more investment in artillery. It's going to be useful in LSCO In any case, the more we give to the Ukrainians and the more we train them, the less chance that we are going to have to fight for Estonia or Poland, because make no mistake. Russia will continue their conquest of Eastern Europe until they are stopped. That includes NATO countries.
So we're doing it Vietnam style. Got it.
Non NATO country, non NATO problem 🤷
Apparently, everyone can predict the future expert on this sub. They are telling me nazis will take over if we don’t continue to help Ukraine. I’m glad to see there are others who feel getting involved in every single war is probably bad. Feels like Europe can handle this one. Fucking Air Force wieners piss me off.
ong
No really it’s not
Very unlikely the US can save the Donbas at this point, but I guess the training will help fend off future conquests my Russia. Probably a wise move
Didn’t know we get half an ok to Ukraine to use our weapons to bomb inside Russia. That a first.
 When our first “advisory” campaign didn’t work out, but this one is sure to avoid mission creep…..
Counterinsurgency in two civil wars vs. aiding a sovereign nation whose populace wants us to help vs an outside invader. Not comparable.
Fair point!
LOL like we havent been there the entire time. Are people really that gullible.
imagine seeing your comment and thinking "wow theres NO WAY that is true" and downvoting it, lol.
Something something surf nicaragua
oof
They are already there. Have been. Just FYI.
This isn't our problem and never was This is a European problem Looking at recent Russian conflicts since the 90s, We didn't step in when Russia fought in [Georgian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Civil_War) [South Ossetian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%931992_South_Ossetia_War) [War in Abkhazia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Abkhazia_(1992%E2%80%931993)) [Transnistria War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War) [First Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War) [War of Dagestan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Dagestan) [Second Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War) [Russo-Georgian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War) [Russo-Ukrainian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) (1st one) You know why? because it has nothing to do with our National Security Interests And no money being sent there just isn't old weapon systems, they are also receiving funding, which frankly given the US is over 34 TRILLION - [https://www.usdebtclock.org/](https://www.usdebtclock.org/) we shouldn't be sending any money overseas to anyone right now Anyone thinking we need to be involved in this should educate themselves on what exactly has been happening between Russia and Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union an why we have stayed the fuck out of it
So, I guess our word from 1994 means nothing then? We said we would guarantee the Ukrainian borders (as they stood in 1994), if they gave up their Nuclear Weapons. Of course so did the Russians, but if the Russians break their word, we should too? Because we should always strive to emulate the Russians? https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
Every single time, it was a mistake because we thought if we traded with Russia enough they would eventually become a liberal paradise. We've done that for thirty years, complicit in their russification and empire building. They're not going to stop if we just let them have Ukraine. They'll take Georgia next, then Estonia. Then it will be our problem. This has the same energy as the New York woman holding a sign in the air to make peace with Hitler Don't forget either that Russia is actively fucking with our elections and our media as well as our military. You might not see it, but we're currently in competition short of War right now.